Sunday, April 22, 2012

How is it possible to knife someone 3 times in the back deliberately and with malice aforethought and not end up in prison? Well, read on...Express.

A TEENAGE thug who stabbed a hero father protecting his son from a baying gang has walked free from court. Despite knifing the man three times in the back, the 16-year-old was sentenced to just 60 hours community service. The gang was trying to rob two schoolboy brothers who had just left cricket practice in Rainham, Essex. The terrified brothers fled and phoned their father pleading with him to rescue them. When the brave 46-year-old confronted the youths he was surrounded and stabbed in the shoulder and back. None of those involved in the case can be named for legal reasons.The 16-year-old, from Romford, was handed 60 hours community service, a three-month curfew and a three-year supervision order after admitting wounding with intent and affray. Three other youths were each given 10 month referral orders after pleading guilty to affray.

This actually follows up quite neatly on my post of Friday on the effect of government policy on carrying weapons,what we have is a classic example of only criminals being allowed to carry knives and get away with wounding an innocent guy who'd turned up to protect his kids from being robbed by said scum. I do wonder what would have happened to the father if he'd turned up with some sort of edged weapon, I suspect it wouldn't be 60 hours community service.

So what we have is a situation where the state via the law has abdicated its responsibilities to the law abiding, we can no longer expect justice in any shape or form and yet if we were to defend ourselves, we'd soon find ourselves facing far worse than those who the state does not deal with.

It's almost as if they're trying to make us angry and do something in order to crack down harder.

From the end of the Express article: "Three years ago judges were given the go-ahead to lock up anyone caught carrying a blade or offensive weapon."

Yes? Well during the riots certain groups were seen openly carrying weapons, and strangely enough the police didn't bother them.

I think we can guess that 'go-ahead' was especially to imprison the non-favoured people who defended themselves, but we can be sure harmless fishermen and other hobbyists are potential targets for intimidation by our 'Justice' system as well.

However, the violent scum who go out and deliberately attack and knife someone are not to be subjugated by Clarke to the same oppressive regime as anyone who has the temerity to defend themselves.

I can't help but feel that the CPS just took whatever the attacker was willing to own up to; using other evidence to prove attempted murder (3 stabs in the back!) just might have seemed too much like hard work to those brave lawyers, especially if the CPS might have been dealing with any 'favoured group'.